Did the people of Honduras who recently walked from Central America to the US border inspire your post about the so-called immigration crisis? Is this the context?

The angst about this issue is "really not all that complicated."

Normal people determine what their immigration policy is, and they often write it into their constitution. Every country in the world has done this in recent years. The US has done this periodically in the form of legislation. It's not monumentally complex, in my opinion. The Immigration Act that is currently in place, as a matter of fact, looks fine to me. Immigration has quotas and is based upon the following: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. So right off the top, my head is not exploding, which makes it difficult to understand what the bitter cartoons with their barely concealed rage are trying to say.

What I do know is the grifters occupying Congress refuse to write immigration legislation they would like to put into place to replace what we currently have. I presume that the people who own them will not let them do so for financial reasons. But I would hope they are not using your posted comment as a guide, because every single word of it is based on misinformation about the past, or on distorted statistics, or on misunderstanding about what is occuring presently.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole tedious thing, but suffice to say, the people of Honduras are not illegal aliens. They did not walk to the US to become illegal aliens. When we destroyed their country lately by overthrowing their democratically -elected leader and installing the current monster, people with critical thinking skills immediately anticipated this crisis. The Hondurans, for now, are applying for temporary refugee statis. They are running for their lives.

So, right off the bat, those cartoons make no sense. Pay attention to your stats. Do those represent your thinking? Are you under the impression that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens climbed a fence or snuck across the desert to get into the United States? Are you under the impression that Americans lost their coveted jobs to landscapers, dish washers, maids, and fruit pickers?

The US has killed/destroyed the lives of tens of millions in every fucking corner of the globe. Maybe the country should allow a few million of these people in as reparations?

Almost 1.5 million people legally immigrated in 2016 - the majority from countries we didn't destroy and a large percentage of them having skills that could be put to better use to improve their originating countries.

Did the people of Honduras who recently walked from Central America to the US border inspire your post about the so-called immigration crisis? Is this the context?

The angst about this issue is "really not all that complicated."

Normal people determine what their immigration policy is, and they often write it into their constitution. Every country in the world has done this in recent years. The US has done this periodically in the form of legislation. It's not monumentally complex, in my opinion. The Immigration Act that is currently in place, as a matter of fact, looks fine to me. Immigration has quotas and is based upon the following: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. So right off the top, my head is not exploding, which makes it difficult to understand what the bitter cartoons with their barely concealed rage are trying to say.

What I do know is the grifters occupying Congress refuse to write immigration legislation they would like to put into place to replace what we currently have. I presume that the people who own them will not let them do so for financial reasons. But I would hope they are not using your posted comment as a guide, because every single word of it is based on misinformation about the past, or on distorted statistics, or on misunderstanding about what is occuring presently.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole tedious thing, but suffice to say, the people of Honduras are not illegal aliens. They did not walk to the US to become illegal aliens. When we destroyed their country lately by overthrowing their democratically -elected leader and installing the current monster, people with critical thinking skills immediately anticipated this crisis. The Hondurans, for now, are applying for temporary refugee statis. They are running for their lives.

So, right off the bat, those cartoons make no sense. Pay attention to your stats. Do those represent your thinking? Are you under the impression that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens climbed a fence or snuck across the desert to get into the United States? Are you under the impression that Americans lost their coveted jobs to landscapers, dish washers, maids, and fruit pickers?

Should the US open their doors to all the people who's lives/livelihoods have been destroyed by US military/CIA actions, both covert and overt, in their countries of origin?

Giving our genocide-befouled nation the opportunity to make things right for the the people we displaced and harmed seems just and fair to me. Or, we can alternatively pay tens-of-trillions of dollars to repair every bit of the damage we caused and to repair the opportunities and potential of the lives we broke.

But my personal sense of justice means nothing. I am allowing my anger and despair to guide me, which is a flawed form of justice.

What matters is that our reckoning is on the march. American voters set loose upon the world their most vile psychopaths, who caused a deadly ripple in the global lifeforce. In the meta-physical sense, that force is compelled to level out the gross inequalities that are spiking chaos in the world. It comes to lop off the heads of the tall poppies so the sunlight can reach the rest of the crop. I am not confused about what to expect.

The US has killed/destroyed the lives of tens of millions in every fucking corner of the globe. Maybe the country should allow a few million of these people in as reparations?

Almost 1.5 million people legally immigrated in 2016 - the majority from countries we didn't destroy and a large percentage of them having skills that could be put to better use to improve their originating countries.

When we destroyed their country lately by overthrowing their democratically -elected leader and installing the current monster, people with critical thinking skills immediately anticipated this crisis. The Hondurans, for now, are applying for temporary refugee statis. They are running for their lives.

You're both talking about things everyone who gives a shit about the current "crisis" should be talking about; so, thank you both!

Our policies cause it. I saw a picture, about a year ago, with 2 Muslim girls holding a sign that said, "If you don't like refugees, then stop making them."

The US has killed/destroyed the lives of tens of millions in every fucking corner of the globe. Maybe the country should allow a few million of these people in as reparations?

Almost 1.5 million people legally immigrated in 2016 - the majority from countries we didn't destroy and a large percentage of them having skills that could be put to better use to improve their originating countries.

Edit: to say pre-rant, nothing personal against essayist. Respect FreeSociety for writing about immigration stuff here, it takes nerve to go against the grain even if they are just words. I am triggered by my Irish heritage, it is not that long since great grandpa came here to California to escape the asshole landlords in Ireland, the famine. Skipped the Statue of Liberty and rushed straight to California in 1853. The contribution of Irish labor following the Great Famine. harsh empathy

"The Wall" is for those who can't think farther then UniParty tells them to think. Torturing people who seek to improve what U.S. trade policies destroyed (right livelihood) is the epitome of inhumanity if you ask me. Not smart, the backlash will be just as cruel if not worse. Good luck future.
Duh! Why are there no caravans coming from Canada? Let's hear the UniParty 'splain that fact away, then we can talk about their efforts to build their creepy capitalist wall. Or not.

Mr. Trump is a racist piece of shit, Ms. Pelosi is the exact same thing but different veneer, a bright and shiny human piece of shit. Both are capitalist war pigs against common dignity and respect for all, that's what I think. They each treat the working class like chattel, no borders or walls for their Chamber of Commerce of course. Non-working seniors and disabled left in the economic ditch because why not. Grow or die, that is their golden ring. Die granny die!

Minimum wage in California is now $11 an hour, keep flushing! Is Bernie still bragging about "winning" the "Fight for $15" here, as John Muir spins in his human shit-filled Yosemite grave? I-Asshole is televising the revolution, so meh. No help from politicians, none.

Free societies don't use insecure monopoly software, Free as in freedom, not price.Free Software, Free Society
But no! The sheeple have spoken... baaah!! Screw Amerika Great Again NSA! screw it to the wall with bad technology. LOL malware? Just say Windows(TM).

Because people will jump it, or tunnel under it... (Remember how the war on drugs worked out SO well at ensuring that pot never made it into our country?)

If that's what the PTB want to spend their collective energy on, let it be their legacy. I'm sure it will bring them much comfort to think of their own personal Colonel Jessup out there, watching their ass.

we create refugees. Wouldn't be wiser to stop fearing elected socialists and partnering with them rather than seeking to replace those leaders with corporate fascists? This goes back a long time...remember Smedley Butler?

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

The control of these counties continues under both parties. Obomber and the $hill supported a Honduran coup replacing a duly elected populous. T-rump and his oligarchs approved an corrupt election in Honduras in order to install a corporacrat. The CIA worked (along with Bannon) to elect a fascist in Brazil last year. We're doing everything in our power to overthrow the elected gov't in Venezuela and Cuba.

My point is we don't need a wall, we need to quit destabilizing other countries in order to enrich our corporations. Who wants to leave their home? The money you suggest we "give" to CA goes for military training (Think school of the americas), control, repression, and out right murder....not to help but to control.

up

27 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Obomber and the $hill supported a Honduran coup replacing a duly elected populous.

#RememberBerta

we create refugees. Wouldn't be wiser to stop fearing elected socialists and partnering with them rather than seeking to replace those leaders with corporate fascists? This goes back a long time...remember Smedley Butler?

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

The control of these counties continues under both parties. Obomber and the $hill supported a Honduran coup replacing a duly elected populous. T-rump and his oligarchs approved an corrupt election in Honduras in order to install a corporacrat. The CIA worked (along with Bannon) to elect a fascist in Brazil last year. We're doing everything in our power to overthrow the elected gov't in Venezuela and Cuba.

My point is we don't need a wall, we need to quit destabilizing other countries in order to enrich our corporations. Who wants to leave their home? The money you suggest we "give" to CA goes for military training (Think school of the americas), control, repression, and out right murder....not to help but to control.

Populist should have been the word used. Berta was working to prevent the construction of a dam at the time of her death. US interests were involved...in fact if memory serves some of her murderers were trained in the school of the Americas in Columbus, GA.

Surrounding the political and economic refugees is being framed as a hostile disregard towards the powerless rather than an antipathy towards the capitalist whores who have been running our country since its inception and the criminal foreign policy they inflict on other countries for their own venal benefit.

But I guess everyone's entitled to their own distorted opinion.

up

12 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

While you're going to get slapped around for taking this stance on this site, it's to the site's credit that you're allowed to post this without being banned or running afoul of HR-gangs (something bad from another site many of us are refugees from).

I agree in large part with the comment from Lookout. It's very much true that it was us, the US, that created or contributed to almost every problem facing Central and South America. On the other hand, we won't fix the problem by taking in some refugees or "undocumented" immigrants.

The folks complaining about "pro-wall racists" seldom have a viable solution. They prefer taking potshots at the wall and crying over so-called family separation instead of actually doing something to end the execrable policies that cause such misery in our hemisphere.

So while your rhetoric comes off as strident and your tone ruffles feathers, it's good that you mention some of the downsides of current national policy -- trafficking, wage suppression, etc.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wall and terminology like illegal immigrant, we might get somewhere.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wall and terminology like illegal immigrant, we might get somewhere.

Is at the heart of the matter.

While you're going to get slapped around for taking this stance on this site, it's to the site's credit that you're allowed to post this without being banned or running afoul of HR-gangs (something bad from another site many of us are refugees from).

I agree in large part with the comment from Lookout. It's very much true that it was us, the US, that created or contributed to almost every problem facing Central and South America. On the other hand, we won't fix the problem by taking in some refugees or "undocumented" immigrants.

The folks complaining about "pro-wall racists" seldom have a viable solution. They prefer taking potshots at the wall and crying over so-called family separation instead of actually doing something to end the execrable policies that cause such misery in our hemisphere.

So while your rhetoric comes off as strident and your tone ruffles feathers, it's good that you mention some of the downsides of current national policy -- trafficking, wage suppression, etc.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wall and terminology like illegal immigrant, we might get somewhere.

up

10 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wallrefugees and terminology like illegal immigrant “amnesty”, we might get somewhere.

—
I’m just saying, the tactic of pointing fingers at anything other than the root cause problems is not coming from only those opposing the wall.

I think the reason, or one reason anyway, that we never get anywhere on this is the ongoing partisan political game playing, instead of anyone in the government on any side taking it seriously. They ALL want to use it as a political football, not solve any problems.

This also goes for trump and his ridiculous rhetoric over “the wall” which isn’t a wall, playing up an “invasion” that isn’t real, calling refugees terms like criminals, terrorists, etc. and whipping up fear, hatred, and anger at the people fleeing the mess the US has created. And then using this emotional drama to attack democrats.

And the stupid democrats, playing right along, trying to score their own political points.

Nothing but bullshit and obfuscation and game playing from all of them.

Trump is utterly incoherent about his wall, or “barrier” “beautiful steel slats” or — my favorite so far, from yesterday — an “invisible fence” — which is brilliant actually.

I say let’s go with that one, then everyone can be happy. It won’t cost a dime, and Trump can point to empty space and say “There it is! It’s invisible! It’s the best wall ever in history!”

Why not? It was so bizarre yesterday, after Kelly admitted on tv “it’s not a wall” and Lindsey Graham called the wall “a metaphor” — and then trump had a classic twitter meltdown that was insane. It’s a wall but it isn’t. Mexico is paying for it. But damn those democrats for not paying for it!

Meanwhile, the border patrol is firing tear gas into Mexico from San Diego, and the federal government remains in a shutdown over this farce. It would be funny, but a lot of real people on both sides of the border are being hurt.

@CS in AZ
cost to the taxpayer. Just make the billions that go to Israel contingent on them constructing the wall for us. They have proved that they can produce 2,000 miles of this wallbarrier fence for a bargain price of $6.4 billion.

Just need to add a few million to supply school children with paint so they can dress it up and make it look pretty. Trump could sponsor a national contest.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wallrefugees and terminology like illegal immigrant “amnesty”, we might get somewhere.

—
I’m just saying, the tactic of pointing fingers at anything other than the root cause problems is not coming from only those opposing the wall.

I think the reason, or one reason anyway, that we never get anywhere on this is the ongoing partisan political game playing, instead of anyone in the government on any side taking it seriously. They ALL want to use it as a political football, not solve any problems.

This also goes for trump and his ridiculous rhetoric over “the wall” which isn’t a wall, playing up an “invasion” that isn’t real, calling refugees terms like criminals, terrorists, etc. and whipping up fear, hatred, and anger at the people fleeing the mess the US has created. And then using this emotional drama to attack democrats.

And the stupid democrats, playing right along, trying to score their own political points.

Nothing but bullshit and obfuscation and game playing from all of them.

Trump is utterly incoherent about his wall, or “barrier” “beautiful steel slats” or — my favorite so far, from yesterday — an “invisible fence” — which is brilliant actually.

I say let’s go with that one, then everyone can be happy. It won’t cost a dime, and Trump can point to empty space and say “There it is! It’s invisible! It’s the best wall ever in history!”

Why not? It was so bizarre yesterday, after Kelly admitted on tv “it’s not a wall” and Lindsey Graham called the wall “a metaphor” — and then trump had a classic twitter meltdown that was insane. It’s a wall but it isn’t. Mexico is paying for it. But damn those democrats for not paying for it!

Meanwhile, the border patrol is firing tear gas into Mexico from San Diego, and the federal government remains in a shutdown over this farce. It would be funny, but a lot of real people on both sides of the border are being hurt.

Also, Israel could throw in some classes on how this fence solved all their problems.

And train the border patrol on how to take care of any rabble rousers on the other side.

Sounds like a plan!

#9.1.1
cost to the taxpayer. Just make the billions that go to Israel contingent on them constructing the wall for us. They have proved that they can produce 2,000 miles of this wallbarrier fence for a bargain price of $6.4 billion.

Just need to add a few million to supply school children with paint so they can dress it up and make it look pretty. Trump could sponsor a national contest.

The larger point, of course, is that the partisans from either side don't seem to realize that the parameters of the argument are being manipulating by politicians obfuscating the actual problem on behalf of their overlords bidding.

This political puppet show is not intended to address anything. Merely another way to capitalize on a divisive issue for their own benefit while the powerless continue to suffer.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wallrefugees and terminology like illegal immigrant “amnesty”, we might get somewhere.

—
I’m just saying, the tactic of pointing fingers at anything other than the root cause problems is not coming from only those opposing the wall.

I think the reason, or one reason anyway, that we never get anywhere on this is the ongoing partisan political game playing, instead of anyone in the government on any side taking it seriously. They ALL want to use it as a political football, not solve any problems.

This also goes for trump and his ridiculous rhetoric over “the wall” which isn’t a wall, playing up an “invasion” that isn’t real, calling refugees terms like criminals, terrorists, etc. and whipping up fear, hatred, and anger at the people fleeing the mess the US has created. And then using this emotional drama to attack democrats.

And the stupid democrats, playing right along, trying to score their own political points.

Nothing but bullshit and obfuscation and game playing from all of them.

Trump is utterly incoherent about his wall, or “barrier” “beautiful steel slats” or — my favorite so far, from yesterday — an “invisible fence” — which is brilliant actually.

I say let’s go with that one, then everyone can be happy. It won’t cost a dime, and Trump can point to empty space and say “There it is! It’s invisible! It’s the best wall ever in history!”

Why not? It was so bizarre yesterday, after Kelly admitted on tv “it’s not a wall” and Lindsey Graham called the wall “a metaphor” — and then trump had a classic twitter meltdown that was insane. It’s a wall but it isn’t. Mexico is paying for it. But damn those democrats for not paying for it!

Meanwhile, the border patrol is firing tear gas into Mexico from San Diego, and the federal government remains in a shutdown over this farce. It would be funny, but a lot of real people on both sides of the border are being hurt.

up

11 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

This political puppet show is not intended to address anything. Merely another way to capitalize on a divisive issue for their own benefit while the powerless continue to suffer.

-
That’s exactly what I was getting at. Thanks!

By the way, to clarify a bit, I don’t sit and watch broadcast tv news or talk shows at all, and I’m not on twitter or any social media either.

I do however read a lot of news online, from multiple sources, and thereby I see various reports, clips of tv interviews, and twitter embeds.

I never imagined in a million years that the president of the US would be announcing US policy via “tweets” — but here we are.

I’m especially interested in the border debate because of where I live, and thanks to people I know who are or have been on the front lines. So I’m following it more closely than I do most political news these days. And I’ve been sick so had a lot of time to read the past couple days.

The larger point, of course, is that the partisans from either side don't seem to realize that the parameters of the argument are being manipulating by politicians obfuscating the actual problem on behalf of their overlords bidding.

This political puppet show is not intended to address anything. Merely another way to capitalize on a divisive issue for their own benefit while the powerless continue to suffer.

Remember when Survivor was the first reality show? At the time we had no idea what would spawn from it. Now look where we are with reality TV? I think the same could be said for our Twit (ter) inclined President.

I never imagined in a million years that the president of the US would be announcing US policy via “tweets” — but here we are.

This political puppet show is not intended to address anything. Merely another way to capitalize on a divisive issue for their own benefit while the powerless continue to suffer.

-
That’s exactly what I was getting at. Thanks!

By the way, to clarify a bit, I don’t sit and watch broadcast tv news or talk shows at all, and I’m not on twitter or any social media either.

I do however read a lot of news online, from multiple sources, and thereby I see various reports, clips of tv interviews, and twitter embeds.

I never imagined in a million years that the president of the US would be announcing US policy via “tweets” — but here we are.

I’m especially interested in the border debate because of where I live, and thanks to people I know who are or have been on the front lines. So I’m following it more closely than I do most political news these days. And I’ve been sick so had a lot of time to read the past couple days.

up

3 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

Most people seem to think the ship will be righted; either a proper democrat will replace him, or at least a competent republican. And then we can all get back to business as usual.

I’m not sure at all that will happen. Trump is a TV star and, really, a master magician/con artist. And, he excels at that job — creating enthralling distraction while his cohorts pick our pockets, rob our homes, and steal the car... all while he dazzles everyone with his insane tricks.

It may be this is the new normal, and wealthy celebrity actors are the only thing that will do from now on.

Remember when Survivor was the first reality show? At the time we had no idea what would spawn from it. Now look where we are with reality TV? I think the same could be said for our Twit (ter) inclined President.

I never imagined in a million years that the president of the US would be announcing US policy via “tweets” — but here we are.

Most people seem to think the ship will be righted; either a proper democrat will replace him, or at least a competent republican. And then we can all get back to business as usual.

I’m not sure at all that will happen. Trump is a TV star and, really, a master magician/con artist. And, he excels at that job — creating enthralling distraction while his cohorts pick our pockets, rob our homes, and steal the car... all while he dazzles everyone with his insane tricks.

It may be this is the new normal, and wealthy celebrity actors are the only thing that will do from now on.

up

5 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

@edg
I wonder what you would consider to be a "viable" solution. There are plenty of solutions being offered -- the problem is that they are ideologically unpalatable to mainstream americans, and financially unpalatable to the people whose propaganda drives the ideology of mainstream americans.

A. End the drug wars.
B. Stop all military/security aid to violent regimes that victimize their own people.
C. Openly and actively support, all democratically elected non-violent regimes -- even the ones that self-identify as socialist and intend to implement policies that will recapture their nations' wealth for the benefit of the people, rather than oligarchs and transnational corporations.
D. Openly and actively disdain all non-democratic regimes.
E. Cease all operations, covert and otherwise, intended to exercise control over the political systems in other countries.

The single worst thing about the wall is that it is not any kind of solution at all, yet it will make a large fraction of Americans think that Something Useful Is Being Done, thus reducing any kind of popular pressure for actual solutions to the actual problems. In other words, it's worse than just stupid, it's actively evil.

While you're going to get slapped around for taking this stance on this site, it's to the site's credit that you're allowed to post this without being banned or running afoul of HR-gangs (something bad from another site many of us are refugees from).

I agree in large part with the comment from Lookout. It's very much true that it was us, the US, that created or contributed to almost every problem facing Central and South America. On the other hand, we won't fix the problem by taking in some refugees or "undocumented" immigrants.

The folks complaining about "pro-wall racists" seldom have a viable solution. They prefer taking potshots at the wall and crying over so-called family separation instead of actually doing something to end the execrable policies that cause such misery in our hemisphere.

So while your rhetoric comes off as strident and your tone ruffles feathers, it's good that you mention some of the downsides of current national policy -- trafficking, wage suppression, etc.

Now if only we could get people of compassion to fight as hard against the US's destructive policies as they do against the border wall and terminology like illegal immigrant, we might get somewhere.

I'd get behind your A, B and E wholeheartedly. I find C and D more problematic because that kind of winner/loser picking is the type of thing that led to the current mess. Libya had a leader that violated item D. But removing him led to a far worse outcome for the people of Libya. Item C sounds good, but where's the red line? Israel has a democratically elected government that is non-violent to its own kind but hell on Earth toward Palestinians. It would be simpler although possibly less fulfilling to have a totally hands-off approach to all other governments.

Unfortunately, few if any politicians will get behind your proposals. It's much easier to throw red meat to the base -- "Impeach Trump!" "Build the wall!!" -- than it is to take actual constructive action. But who's to blame? We the voters keep putting the same type of warmongers and killers in office, and we the voters keep letting them distract us with petty shit -- "No money for the wall!!" "Abolish ICE!!" etc.

#9
I wonder what you would consider to be a "viable" solution. There are plenty of solutions being offered -- the problem is that they are ideologically unpalatable to mainstream americans, and financially unpalatable to the people whose propaganda drives the ideology of mainstream americans.

A. End the drug wars.
B. Stop all military/security aid to violent regimes that victimize their own people.
C. Openly and actively support, all democratically elected non-violent regimes -- even the ones that self-identify as socialist and intend to implement policies that will recapture their nations' wealth for the benefit of the people, rather than oligarchs and transnational corporations.
D. Openly and actively disdain all non-democratic regimes.
E. Cease all operations, covert and otherwise, intended to exercise control over the political systems in other countries.

The single worst thing about the wall is that it is not any kind of solution at all, yet it will make a large fraction of Americans think that Something Useful Is Being Done, thus reducing any kind of popular pressure for actual solutions to the actual problems. In other words, it's worse than just stupid, it's actively evil.

@edg
about my careful choice of the word "disdain". Libya had a pretty horrible leader, but we didn't have him killed because he was horrible to his own people, we had him killed because he wouldn't play ball with us. Either way, "disdain" wasn't intended as a soft codeword for undermining a regime, but literally the straightforward official expression, at such times as appropriate and warranted, of contempt for such regimes. I explicitly oppose almost any attempts to impose a government on another nation, one rare exception being perhaps in cases of genocide, and then only under the auspices of an international mission. Rwanda, yes. Iraq, no.

by, "openly and actively support", i do not mean sending arms and armored cars and military advisors -- i mean only, engaging in friendly and open diplomacy and cultural/economic exchange, offering assistance during national catastrophes, working together on science projects, etc. this is as opposed to our current policy, which is to undermine any government that is not subservient to our imperial designs.

i admit though, that these two items are more difficult to nail down with precision.

I'd get behind your A, B and E wholeheartedly. I find C and D more problematic because that kind of winner/loser picking is the type of thing that led to the current mess. Libya had a leader that violated item D. But removing him led to a far worse outcome for the people of Libya. Item C sounds good, but where's the red line? Israel has a democratically elected government that is non-violent to its own kind but hell on Earth toward Palestinians. It would be simpler although possibly less fulfilling to have a totally hands-off approach to all other governments.

Unfortunately, few if any politicians will get behind your proposals. It's much easier to throw red meat to the base -- "Impeach Trump!" "Build the wall!!" -- than it is to take actual constructive action. But who's to blame? We the voters keep putting the same type of warmongers and killers in office, and we the voters keep letting them distract us with petty shit -- "No money for the wall!!" "Abolish ICE!!" etc.

I agree. More, I think it's on purpose. Let's just step back and take a look at what the "two parties" have offered us.

A) Democrats: Open borders. This is, of course, ridiculous. If you have open borders you don't have a nation.
B) Republicans: A militarized border with walls and spikes and hounds to be released. Again, ridiculous. First, it won't work and second, it's not the nation I want to live in.

But when you look at that it's the same dirty trick they always play. They have given us two options as polar extremes so that we can fight over the issue like dogs snarling over a bone. It seems to me that there must be answers that:

A) Provides some reasonable barriers to entry. Specifically, the normal stuff that was mentioned above... useful to the nation in some way.
B) Acknowledges the role and responsibility the US has in creating this particular refugee problem.
C) More generally, acknowledges human suffering globally.

And on that last one, perhaps then if we don't want everyone immigrating to the US we ought to reduce suffering globally? Or, I suppose we can continue on the path we are on which is to increase suffering domestically as well as abroad which will presumably in equalized misery across the globe.

Overall, I am sympathetic to the argument that "open borders" is a non-starter. It is also clearly true that insufficient funds is never the reason that the US fails to do something. The problem here is that the "two parties" have provided a false dichotomy.

up

7 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

A. I have no idea where you pulled that number. Most analyses I've seen indicate that illegal immigration is a net economic positive for the federal government, for a variety of rather unseemly reasons. Feel free to back it up, if you can. Otherwise, you should consider retracting the assertion.
B. Globalists quite explicitly do not have an Open Borders policy with respect to people -- they have an Open Borders policy with respect to capital and goods. For example, the maquiladora system only works if there's a nice shiny wall (figurative or literal) standing there between El Paso and whatever the hell nightmare lies on the other side of the big river.

A. I have no idea where you pulled that number. Most analyses I've seen indicate that illegal immigration is a net economic positive for the federal government, for a variety of rather unseemly reasons. Feel free to back it up, if you can. Otherwise, you should consider retracting the assertion.
B. Globalists quite explicitly do not have an Open Borders policy with respect to people -- they have an Open Borders policy with respect to capital and goods. For example, the maquiladora system only works if there's a nice shiny wall (figurative or literal) standing there between El Paso and whatever the hell nightmare lies on the other side of the big river.

Like pretty much everything he says. Made up on the spot, and posted on twitter. Viola! His followers then spread it, without any critical thinking or even caring that it’s a lie.

Good info at your link, thank you!

"I have no idea where that number comes from," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization. "It seems to be conjured out of thin air. I haven't seen any fiscal cost estimates, either reputable or disreputable, that place the number at $200 billion per year."

Trump's claim even left anti-immigration groups flummoxed. It exceeded estimates from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

"We're not sure how the president is sourcing his number and really wouldn't want to speculate," said David Ray, communications director for FAIR.

Like pretty much everything he says. Made up on the spot, and posted on twitter. Viola! His followers then spread it, without any critical thinking or even caring that it’s a lie.

Good info at your link, thank you!

"I have no idea where that number comes from," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization. "It seems to be conjured out of thin air. I haven't seen any fiscal cost estimates, either reputable or disreputable, that place the number at $200 billion per year."

Trump's claim even left anti-immigration groups flummoxed. It exceeded estimates from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

"We're not sure how the president is sourcing his number and really wouldn't want to speculate," said David Ray, communications director for FAIR.

Yeah... probably best not to speculate.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Globalists do have an explicit open borders policy for people. According to the World Economic Forum, "globalization is the process by which people and goods move easily across borders". [ref. What is globalization anyway?] According to the International Monetary Fund, "Globalization is the integration of economic activity across borders. Other forms of integration—above all, the spread of people and ideas—accompany it." [ref. Shaping Globalization]

task on a couple of specifics in your essay, so what the hell, I will.

A. I have no idea where you pulled that number. Most analyses I've seen indicate that illegal immigration is a net economic positive for the federal government, for a variety of rather unseemly reasons. Feel free to back it up, if you can. Otherwise, you should consider retracting the assertion.
B. Globalists quite explicitly do not have an Open Borders policy with respect to people -- they have an Open Borders policy with respect to capital and goods. For example, the maquiladora system only works if there's a nice shiny wall (figurative or literal) standing there between El Paso and whatever the hell nightmare lies on the other side of the big river.

@edg
between what these people say and what they believe/implement? a more accurate phrasing from the WEF would be, by which certain people .... highly paid professionals/consultants/executives, for example -- they need to be free to zip around from here to there, from this office to that facility and on, without worrying about visas or tax consequences. What I am describing here is a transnational corporate socioeconomic elite, not an army of workers hopping onto the next cheap flight to wherever the best blue collar jobs are. Imagine, for a moment, if the oligarchs in each country had to compete for labor the same way that the countries currently compete for factories -- if all the best and highest-skilled workers had the option of moving to wherever had the most effective protections for the rights of organized workers? Goodness, we might have race to the top, rather than the bottom. That would certainly never do.

i will grant that the matter is more complex than simply to say they oppose mobility of labor. they are very much in favor, i agree, of the sort of mobility that allows them to bring in H1Bs whom they can treat as third-class non-citizens. you will note, however, that this is a very limited form of mobility -- after all, it requires a visa. one of the things that opens the door so very wide to the abuse of H1B workers is exactly that they are afraid of being booted back out if they don't submit to their employers' exploitation. if the globalists were sincerely interested in the movement of people, they would be promoting an end to all visa and work restrictions. if they are doing so, i have not heard it.

So, for example, the original salesmen of NAFTA told folks that it was going to be easy now for Americans to move to Canada, and Canadians to move to the US. Well guess what, it ain't.

Globalists do have an explicit open borders policy for people. According to the World Economic Forum, "globalization is the process by which people and goods move easily across borders". [ref. What is globalization anyway?] According to the International Monetary Fund, "Globalization is the integration of economic activity across borders. Other forms of integration—above all, the spread of people and ideas—accompany it." [ref. Shaping Globalization]

The US is rather unique in that we only have borders with 2 other nations. Canada is not considered a problem; in fact, it's harder for Americans to get a job in Canada than vice versa. Mexico is only considered a problem by some -- those who compete with the lower wage workers Mexico provides.

Europe has a different situation. It's easy for cheap labor from former Eastern Bloc countries to cross the open borders to western nations and work. That's part of what drove Brexit -- cheap Polish workers flooding their labor market. Because of cheap labor, most European elites embrace globalization with open arms, and that's what America's elites like about it, too.

Open borders are great for businesses and rentiers. Not so good for the workers that are displaced.

#12.2
between what these people say and what they believe/implement? a more accurate phrasing from the WEF would be, by which certain people .... highly paid professionals/consultants/executives, for example -- they need to be free to zip around from here to there, from this office to that facility and on, without worrying about visas or tax consequences. What I am describing here is a transnational corporate socioeconomic elite, not an army of workers hopping onto the next cheap flight to wherever the best blue collar jobs are. Imagine, for a moment, if the oligarchs in each country had to compete for labor the same way that the countries currently compete for factories -- if all the best and highest-skilled workers had the option of moving to wherever had the most effective protections for the rights of organized workers? Goodness, we might have race to the top, rather than the bottom. That would certainly never do.

i will grant that the matter is more complex than simply to say they oppose mobility of labor. they are very much in favor, i agree, of the sort of mobility that allows them to bring in H1Bs whom they can treat as third-class non-citizens. you will note, however, that this is a very limited form of mobility -- after all, it requires a visa. one of the things that opens the door so very wide to the abuse of H1B workers is exactly that they are afraid of being booted back out if they don't submit to their employers' exploitation. if the globalists were sincerely interested in the movement of people, they would be promoting an end to all visa and work restrictions. if they are doing so, i have not heard it.

So, for example, the original salesmen of NAFTA told folks that it was going to be easy now for Americans to move to Canada, and Canadians to move to the US. Well guess what, it ain't.

The US is rather unique in that we only have borders with 2 other nations. Canada is not considered a problem; in fact, it's harder for Americans to get a job in Canada than vice versa. Mexico is only considered a problem by some -- those who compete with the lower wage workers Mexico provides.

Europe has a different situation. It's easy for cheap labor from former Eastern Bloc countries to cross the open borders to western nations and work. That's part of what drove Brexit -- cheap Polish workers flooding their labor market. Because of cheap labor, most European elites embrace globalization with open arms, and that's what America's elites like about it, too.

Open borders are great for businesses and rentiers. Not so good for the workers that are displaced.

for their support of the war OF terror. I would kid them that they needed to stay under their beds because they were so scared shitless they thought a terrorist was around every corner. They were so scared, they wanted the government to spy on them, make them take their shoes and even clothes off at the airports, watch their and everybody else's every move so they would be "safe".

Now here's Huckabee in the video (just got around to watching it) above asking why do we have all those spy cameras, why do we take off our shoes at the airports, etc. He says, "why, it's to keep us safe". He uses all that to justify the wall, to "keep us safe". What a joke. The republicans are still scared shitless and need the government to build a wall around everything so they can be safe.

It's funny how the republicans used to be for less government, but now they want the government to monitor every move everyone takes so they can be "safe". Poor people, I'd hate to have to run around all day scared of my own shadow.

citizens as being justified because it makes us safe. Everything after that is based on bullshit premises. I don't have a strong take on what to do at the border, but maybe if we stopped covertly enabling terrorist groups, politicians, and corporations in South and Central America that would be a good start. But don't explain to me that some particular behavior is ok because Walmart is doing it, or the NSA is doing it. Because that is bullshit.